You can watch him speak from the 2:30 – 37:00 mark. He made a couple of surprising statements.

Schellnhuber starts off by claiming that media reports saying there’s no consensus are false and are only designed to spread confusion.

He claims that there is no dispute about CO2 trapping heat. But that’s just a diversion from the real issue: CO2 sensitivity and feedbacks. Of course CO2 is a greenhouse gas. But the question is: How much warming will a doubling of CO2 lead to? Not much, or a lot? That’s what is being hotly debated. A number of recent peer-reviewed studies and data are showing that the warming indeed will be small.

But to keep the climate catastrophe scenario alive, Schellnhuber in his speech cherry-picks only the literature that supports a massive warming. He ignores all the other papers that show significantly reduced sensitivity and natural factors.

Concedes warming has stopped, blames the oceans

At the 10-minute mark, Schellnhuber thinks he can use the totally discredited Marcott paper to support the AGW theory! The clueless audience is wowed by it. One has to ask if Schellnhuber is maliciously misleading his audience, or is he totally disconnected from reality and unaware that the Marcott paper is worthless?

At the 11:25 mark, he concedes that warming has paused, calling it “a slowdown“. He says the pause is due to hidden planetary mechanisms that are stealing and hiding the heat. In the presentation he says the warming is there – if you ignore the cooling.

At the 12:30 mark Schellnhuber says that the warming in fact “didn’t really pause, but slowed“. He blames the missing warming on the La Nina’s of the 2000s sucking up the heat. “Something is going on in the ocean. […] We haven’t identified all the mechanisms yet.” The oceans have eaten the “tremendous” heat, he explains.

Actually this may be Schellnhuber finally admitting the role of the oceans for the first time. If he blames the oceans for absorbing heat and cooling the planet for the last 10 years, then he also has to concede that they can also release heat and cause warming – as was the case from the period of 1975 – 2000 when the AMO and PDO indexes rose.

You can’t blame the oceans only when it cools, and CO2 when it warms. Time for Schellnhuber to build oceanic cycles into the models.

Concedes that we may have another decade of slowdown!

Remarkably at the 16:40 mark he concedes:

We may have another decade of warming slowdown.”

Professor Schellnhuber, another 10 years would mean a quarter of a century without warming. Not one single model predicted that. The models that you are now relying on for your catastrophic scenarios are therefore rubbish. You are not going to find a single buyer out there.

In a debate Schellnhuber would not survive the first 10 minutes.

Singles out the Economist

At the about the 17:45 mark, Schellnhuber goes after the Economist for daring to question alarmist science. Notice how he looked down at his notes, revealing he had made it a point to do so.

By the way, there has been a lot of talk…the eminent leading climate scientist who sits on the editorial board at the Economist…that was a joke, you may laugh… ha ha, have actually said that climate sensitivity is smaller than we thought.”

How dare the unqualified Economist question the authoritative scientists?

Finally, at about the 20-minute mark, he begins with all the future catastrophic scenarios that await us. He shows a chart depicting 8°C of warming by the year 2200.

This of course means “the global organs will be pushed to destabilization and collapse“. You see, “tremendous amounts of heat are being processed by the planetary machinery” and will come back (after our lifetimes) with a vengeance.

What a con-job.

Dignity or death…9 billion people are too much

At about the 8:30 mark he shows a graphic depicting the climate over the last 100,000 years, correctly stating that the natural climate is often very unstable and that the last 10,000 years have been a “grace period” for mankind. But eerily he asks the audience:

Can we expect in such a wildly fluctuating climate to support 9 billion lives in dignity? Don’t think so.”

What he means by this is open to interpretation. But let’s recall that he once said the optimum population for the planet is about 1 billion, and that “at 9 billion the planet would explode.”

@ “…..Schellnhuber finally admitting the role of the oceans for the first time.”

He could have avoided a lot of nonsense talking if he had read my Letter to Nature, Volume 360, 26 November 1992, page 292; saying :
__”For decades, the real question has been who is responsible for the climate. Climate should have been defined as ‘the continuation of the oceans by other means’.”
The letter in full: http://www.whatisclimate.com/1992-nature.html

I find it amazing that some folks think they know what will happen in 2200 when they haven’t been able to make sense of what is going on in real time. I can say with a high degree of certainty that I won’t be around in 2100 or 2200 to point out that they have been wrong all along.

Well said. The fact is that they can’t say what the future holds. It’s crystal ball hocus-pocus. Used to be 10 years wasn’t a trend, then it was because of aerosols, now the oceans have eaten the heat. Who knows what they’ll think up tomorrow.

When the end of the world failed to materialize Harold Camping then said the end of the world would happen on 21 October 2011. Then when that failed he retired as head of Family Radio. 😉

Harold Camping at least has some honour and gave up. Climastrologists will keep putting out failed predictions with no shame when they are shown to be wrong. In fact they become even more excited and producr more!

If the standstill continues for 2 or 3 more years then the models projections have been falsified as per Santer et. el.. None of the models projected a 25 year standstill in temps with ever rising co2. FAIL!

He was talking about the future generations and we should do anything to avoid problems for them. On the other side he talks about the Climate Change Act 2020.

He said: Emission will peak by 2020, emission down to zero by 2070 and after that going negative (reduce CO2 in the atmosphere).

Guess what? The young people right now will experience a life that they will not like. 50 years of an economy destruction, as only green jobs are good jobs. All the other jobs will slowly disappear.
It will be a life similar to the TV series Revolution http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2070791/ about a global shutdown of all electronic devices. Good luck.

“He said: Emission will peak by 2020, emission down to zero by 2070 and after that going negative (reduce CO2 in the atmosphere). ”

Now the only thing that the warmist communitarian movement needs is a leader that will implement the necessary steps.

Humans emit CO2.

“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that
pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
– Club of Rome

By 2200 we might actually know how the climate works, but we sure don’t now, and to make predictions now is a WAG. I have a better chance of predicting we will be taking the first starship Enterprise out for a test flight in 2200.

The conference Schellnhuber talks at is called the Stakeholders something conference.
“Communitarianism is a political system that gives authority over individuals to unelected community “stakeholder” councils. A stakeholder is defined as a “group, person, organization or system” which can be just about anybody or anything. You’ll find the term used in just about every government and grant funded project in existence today … Forming partnerships with stakeholders is an effective way to bypass voters and taxpayers.”http://www.ukcolumn.org/article/lifting-veil-secrecy

I think we can say that Schellnhuber is a communitarian and that Communitarianism is a continuation of the Kant/Pestalozzi/Hegel/weber philosophies that served as the basis to negate the notion of objective realitiy and as the basis of the militarization of the Prussian state; who needed an anti-individualistic philosophy/ideology to whip its population into a militant frenzy against Napoleonic domination (and succeeded in doing so; which culminated in WW I and II). As Schellnhuber works and lives near the centre of the New German Empire called the Eurozone, this pushing of an anti individualist philosophy in the Prussian spirit does not bode well for freedom in the EU.

Our children would be well advised to ignore any threat from a slightly rising temperature but concentrate on the dictatorial tendencies that emerge via the government muppets like Schellnhuber and Rahmstorf.

We can probably even say, warmist climate science IS communitarian; is a tool for the Agenda 21 / communitarian movement; probably since its inception in 1975 in Stanford. Therefore it serves the same purpose eugenics served for the globalist progressive socialist movement before 1939.

He can’t build the ocean cycles into the models. If he did the derived climate sensitivity would drop by about 40%. Can’t have that since we sceptics say empirical net climate sensitivity is low, which it is.

Then if he does put the ocean cycles in his model we sceptics will point out he has no reason not to put the solar magnetic influence in the model too. Which would drop the modelled climate sensitivity another 40% or so.

And then the models would say the inferred climate sensitivity is the same as Lindzen’s satellite measured value.

All of which he knows quite well, I suspect.

PIK can’t have that, it’d be political suicide for them. But you can only plug holes in dikes using fingers until you run out of fingers. The dam is bursting as the science and data is getting out no matter what they can do to stop it.

Die Welt forgets to mention that fracking has been used since the 1960ies in Lower Saxony without any controversy. Even the allegedly conservative Welt therefore promotes the deliberately distorted worldview of Greenpeace, and must therefore count as a disinformation organ.